to not want to put money in DH pension and not mine?

[yellowcuptea]

Okay - so DH & I together 20 years, 2 kids. Have had the usual ups and downs.

DH is in highest earner bracket so puts a lot in pension as it's tax efficient. I earn about a third of what DH does. I went part-time for kids, took a hit on promotions, didn't pay into pension in maternity etc. but DH was free to go for big jobs.

DH has close to £1m in pension, I have a quarter of that. DH is now suggesting I basically drop my pension contributions to minimum, we put more of DH money in his pension, and use more of my salary to live off. More tax efficient.
Then when I'm 55 we take the 25% out of my pension that's allowed too.

AIBU that this makes me feel really uncertain?? I don't like the idea that my pension will be worth so much less! DH of course is saying, but it's OUR money at the end of the day and even if we split, pensions are a shared asset so I'd still benefit.

YABU - it's family money. Use your salary to live on and save more in DP pension

YANBU - you should both have separate pensions, and you should be paying more into yours not less...

@Everanewbie Interesting, why do you say no affiliation to St James Place?

In most cases the pension will fall outside of the Estate because it is held by pension trustees, and this means it will usually not attract an IHT liability.

Pension trustees will be guided by any nomination of beneficiaries that the pension member has made but they generally look to see first if there is a spouse (or other financial dependent), even if not nominated, who ought to take priority when they decide how to distribute the pension benefits. The trustees have discretion to act as they see fit.

I think it's impossible to answer this without knowing the rest of your financial situation. Do you have other assets, properties, investments or are you just relying on savings and pensions?

This. I am not married and am not up on specifics of entitlement with divorce etc.
If you were going to be anyway financially compromised by your husband's suggestion (in the event of a split), I wouldn't be doing it.
My feelings are influenced by my position as a single parent who had no financial support but now have a very decent pension. And I know too many people who thought their marriages were forever and they weren't!

Nope absolutely not the case unless you are the only named beneficiary

Absolutely get financial advice but there is a logic on what he is saying. It minimises your overall tax and you would be able to use his pot if he passes away ahead of you. I would only be doing this though if everything in the marriage was good.

This exactly. He dies you get half of his pension.

It doesn’t make sense what he’s doing if you look in this as a couple. It does for him as an individual.

How much is he allowed to pay in pa? Is he allowed the full £60k?

I mean it really depends on how much extra tax you are going to save. if he’s in the taper bit or above you should think about maximising as much of your allowance as possible too.

For a few years my OH paid into mine to max out my full allowance. We see it all as the same pot.

I’m surprised only one other poster has mentioned the effective 60% tax rate between 100-125k, due to the loss of personal allowance. This will be why it’s more tax effective to pay into his pension that the OP’s, as he will be paying 60% tax on 25k of his income between 100-125k. Also as a previous poster has said double-check the age you can withdraw your tax free lump sum as it’s gone up to 57

Obviously read up/check with the professionals though i think

• a spouse can contribute to the others pension (subject to that they earned enough in relation to the contribution, then receiver spouse will get 20% tax relief boost in the pension and giver spouse gets the 25% (in this case) on his self assessment
• However giver spouse might have added incentives to add directly to their own pot as it might be matched giving, salary sacrifice and also some employers also lump in the employer national insurance that they do not need to pay as salary sacrifice.
• Gut feel but not an expert, if Giver's scheme does not have salary sacrifice and does not have additional benefits inc then paying into receiver's pension pot might work well whilst giver still gets 25% rebate on his self assessment

Don't forget you pay tax on the money taken out as well as tax relief on money going in. So you could end up with him still being a higher rate taxpayer when you have not fully used your basic rate band.

SJP would be better than no advice at all. However, SJP seem to have found ways to circumnavigate the Retail Distribution Review (RDR) by charging fees as a kind of deferred initial charge, commission in all but name, hidden away as additional annual fees, where sometimes penalties (or outstanding fees as they will claim) are payable if you decide to transfer. Their admin set up are unreasonably slow and obstructive should you decide to appoint a third party adviser. Furthermore, their remuneration structure encourages the hard sale with diamond cufflinks, trips to South Africa and so on. A quick google will provide specific details. Its starting to catch up with them now, but make no mistake, they are being dragged kicking and screaming.

The experience will vary from partner firm to partner firm, but with so many options out there, there are better value and more transparent organisations. Not to mention there below average investment performance despite charging top dollar.

also consider whether how much you see your finances as a joint enterprise and of course how much you trust your husband to manage joint finances fairly.

⬆️⬆️
Having seen many women ending with next to nothing once their dh died because they were relying on their dh pension, I would always advocate to have your own pension pot. And to treat it with the same consideration (aka putting as much money as you can) as your dh is with his.
Dont forget that women usually outlive their dh so it’s not a ‘just in case’ scenario.

If you can reduce paying into your pension to cover him paying more, ould he accept it’s also ok to do it in reverse? You put more money into yours and he reduces his payments to cover for it - seeing his akways has a very much pot that will ensure he has a nice life in retirement.

Absolutely not. If he's putting extra into his it gets matched pound for pound into yours.

Get off Mumsnet, get on the phone and get an appointment with an independent impartial financial advisor (not the one your husband uses).

While not accusing him of anything, I've seen waaaaay to many women here utterly blindsided by husbands' behaviour.

You need professional advice.

Can my husband or wife pay into my pension? - Rest Less

Looks like i was slightly incorrect as it would be the receiver that gets the additional relief ( 20% for OP) Self assessment so receiver would have a smaller tax bill , where the additional cash could be put back into the receivers pension.

Though you would lose 5% at least in OPs scenario as DH is at 45%

A widowed family member gets half of her deceased DH's pension.

If he is older and more likely to die before you then it wouldn't be in your interest that he has a much bigger pension pot.

Adding to @Everanewbie 's comment....SJP track record on inappropriate fees structure and being appalling value for money is very well documented.

Selfserving husbands are breathtaking after 20years of marriage.

Unbelievable.

As a finance professional, it pains me to see a couple where the woman either takes no interest or is pushed out of the decision making process. I strongly encourage both to be engaged and understand the implications of decisions and have a good comprehension of what is going on, and I think advisers need to push back more against "my husband takes care of all that" to some degree. Its ok for one to lead, but the other needs to be involved.

I though they were taken into account in the split but nothing is saying that, in this case, the OP would get half of his pension.
But rather half of the value - which could be reflected let’s say in getting the house for herself.

The problem is - a lump sum of £500k isn’t the same as £500k in pension.
Not in the way you can use it, not in tax pov etc….

What’s with the bullshit advice today. This is wrong.

He is more likely to die before her even if they are the same age.
Life expectancy for men is stil lower than women.

Why?

All great in theory.Then you get divorced or someone dies...